Inventive step

The inventive step reflects a general patentability requirement in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive (not obvious in view of the prior art using the skilled person’s common general knowledge) in order to be patented / the patent to be held valid. In the United States, rather than ‘inventive step’, the expression ‘non-obviousness’ is used: is the invention an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art? The assessment of the inventive step varies from one country to another.  The European Patent Office uses the so-called problem-and-solution approach to assess inventive step, an instrument also used by several national European courts.

Case Law, EPO, Exceptions to patentability, France, FRAND, Injunction, Inventive step, IP Management, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, SEP

(Dhenne Avocats)/

In the first part of this interview (see here), I already mentioned some of the preconceived ideas about French Courts, which makes France almost systematically considered as one of the last territory to litigate: jurisdictions would be anti-patentee, slow, unable to order preliminary injunctions, even not “specialized”. The Cross-Examination Part I of Mrs. Nathalie Sabotier…

AI, EPC, EPO, Inventive step, ownership, WIPO

, (Institute for Information Law (IViR)) and (Vanderbilt University Law School)/ /11 Comments

Introduction The impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on intellectual property (IP) law undoubtedly ranks as one of the most-discussed topics of 2020 among legal academics and practitioners. Following initiatives at WIPO, the EPO and several national IPOs (including the UKIPO and the USPTO), EU institutions have now also become active in this area. On 20…

Enforcement, evidence, Inventive step, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Plausibility, Prior art, Revocation, Second Medical Use, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

, (Bristows)/

On 4 December 2020, the English Patents Court handed down its decision in Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited & Flynn Pharma Limited v Generics UK Limited (t/a Mylan) & Mylan UK Healthcare Limited, the main action proceedings regarding Neurim’s patent for Circadin™, EP 1 441 702 (“EP 702”).  The judgment is available here. Many readers will…

Inventive step, Novelty, Patents, Spain

(Clifford Chance)/ /1 Comment

Spain has a well-deserved reputation of being a rather formalistic country when it comes to litigation. For example, according to the Civil Procedure Act, a Spanish translation of documents written in languages other than Spanish must be attached to the initial complaint. Otherwise, the Court may simple ignore them. A judgment of 15 October 2019…

Case Law, Inventive step, Netherlands

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

The appeal court confirmed the decision of the first instance court that CDVI’s European patent was invalid due to lack of inventive step. However, the decision raises questions in relation to what may be considered to be common general knowledge. Case date: 23 June 2020 Case number: 200.255.497/01 Court: Court of Appeal of The Hague A full…

Case Law, Germany, Inventive step

(Hoffmann Eitle)/

The use of a generally available tool (here: reverse sandwich assays) can involve an inventive step if the advantages pursued and provided by the invention do not materialize without further effort and if the skilled person would not have found (sufficient) motivation in the state of the art to consider that this tool was suitable…

Infringement, Inventive step, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/ /5 Comments

Mr Justice Morgan handed down judgment on 22 July 2020 ([2020] EWHC 1968 (Pat)) in relation to two patent infringement actions brought by Lufthansa which were heard together.  The first infringement action was against two defendants, Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems and Safran Seats GB Ltd.  The second action was against Panasonic Avionics Corporation. It is…

Inventive step, Kluwer Patent Cases, Litigation, Patents, Prior art, Public prior use, Revocation, United Kingdom, Validity

, , (Bristows)/ /16 Comments

Mishan (T/A Emson) v Hozelock & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 871 Since Arnold LJ’s elevation to the Court of Appeal in 2019, he and Floyd LJ have heard about 11 cases together, spanning a mixture of areas of law, some patents cases and some not.  In the majority of these cases, Floyd LJ (or a…

Inventive step, Litigation, Patents, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

On 1 April 2020, the Court of Appeal, led by Floyd LJ, handed down judgment concerning the strike out of an Arrow declaration in litigation between Mexichem and Honeywell. Honeywell owns six patents that focus on the use of two refrigerants (‘ze’ and ‘yf’) in mobile air-conditioning systems (“MACs”), often used in cars, with a…